Mod release rules

[akiceabear]

why have someone do it, you just do it yourselves. You create a login, add your thread for your mod, fill in some info (tags, categories, links to download etc) hit submit. Simples. Ill do the rest with simple list views that are searchable/sortable. As an example, You add which Alpha the mod is compatiable with, you narrow your filters to show only A9, it shows you only A9 stuff, its all very simple to do. Ill knock something up when I can with my stuff on it so people can see what im talking about.

This sounds great. A few suggestions, if possible:
* Use the platform entirely for organization and linking, rather than discussion. One thing that sucks about such sites is they can fragment the community. To avoid this I suggest just having links back to the relevant "Releases" thread on these boards.
* "Utilities" and "Graphics pack" tag, in addition to the standard "Gameplay" tag - while I dabble in mods that actually change gameplay, utilities like EdB's are the real mainstay for me. Similarly, a "Vanilla-tweaks" tag would be great, for mods that are largely consistent with the core style - I have to admit I avoid many mods simply because they look like too large a GFX or gameplay style departure from the vanilla version. I do understand this would be hard to police... maybe it could be a vote option?
* Simply rating - e.g. just +1's, or perhaps a script that pulls the number of replies from the forum thread as an indication of how "hot" it is.

[soulkata]

Hi...

I've complained about this standard to release the Mods, but have to do it again.
This new format is not any visibility for the mods!

You can not know when an author makes a new release of a specific mod, you must always go to your page and get looking for updates.
Users need to be decorating who created each mod to see if an update to the topic of the forum is relevant.
The comments are all grouped together and it gets more confusing to the user.
Anyway, this new way hinders more than it helps...

Sorry to be annoying but, in my opinion, the traditional way is better...

[Evul]

(I will handle all the other post above soon and answer the questions.)
But first this question:

Hi...

I've complained about this standard to release the Mods, but have to do it again.
This new format is not any visibility for the mods!

You can not know when an author makes a new release of a specific mod, you must always go to your page and get looking for updates.
Users need to be decorating who created each mod to see if an update to the topic of the forum is relevant.
The comments are all grouped together and it gets more confusing to the user.
Anyway, this new way hinders more than it helps...

Sorry to be annoying but, in my opinion, the traditional way is better...

Due to the share amount of threads "mod release per post" would generate would overload the forum and also make things way to messy. Don't think there is a easier way to do it actually.

[soulkata]

Due to the share amount of threads "mod release per post" would generate would overload the forum and also make things way to messy. Don't think there is a easier way to do it actually.

Well, if I give suggestions, I would advise to make two distinct changes:

1) To distinguish the mods that have content widely used from mods that are situational, I would recommend the creation of a new session called "famous mods". In this session, would not be allowed to create new topics. It would be up to the forum administrators transfer the topics of the session "releases" for the session "famous mods" when they are approved. I know it's not the ideal solution, and it will be too much work for you, but, at least, the mods are not be hidden in a topic.

2) To reduce the amount of feedback that the mods get from their users, I would advise the creation of a new session called "feedback". This new session will be used for the relationship between the developer of Mod and its users. She would receive 90% of the current comment. The current session, "releases" (or "famous mods"), would resevada only to deliver new releases. Developers would be advised to change the topics for blocked and add a link to the respective topic of feedback. Therefore, the session "releases" (or "famous mods") is replaced only relevant posts.

[Tynan]

I've just added a rule where modpack makers must credit original mod authors.

[Leucetius]

Proposal: add the requirement for every mod creator to include a license. Ludeon Studios establishes a license itself, where it's reglemented what is allowed mod-wise, what is allowed license-wise (share, modify, distribute, credit (yeah this one should be fairly clear)...) .

Argumentation:
I was active in numerous modding communities throughout my PC years. In some more involved in others not so much. Work expanded from writing Editors and ModManager (Empire: Total War), creating maps (CS / HalfLife / DeusEx - the original ), being part of a large Mod / ModPack teams (X games, Emergency).
What that has to do with my proposal? Easy. Every community without clear rules regarding copyright / usage of assets / Frankenstein'ing others work into something new had huuuuge problems and a highly variable member pool.
I know this is a fairly new game and it's in its early alpha stages. So the perfect time to establish the rules
I looked for a license agreement from you, Tynan, regarding your work and what we are allowed to do. You (all) may know, that his license type has the potential to have a huge influence on what and what not is allowed by the modders.

Example:
I read the catchphrase "share alike" somewhere around here today. Lets construct around that. Modder A creates a new ressource, awesomium, complete with textures, production chain, everything, even some kind of end product. He shares it with "redistribute, use, modify, share-alike".
Modder B thinks, its the perfect ressource for his new mod, Gigablaster 3000. But he doesn't need the end product and ups the GetFromMining value by 1. As he has to, he too shares his mod (now ressource, texture and part of the production chain from A plus his own textures, production table and the Blaster) with the license "redistribute, use, modify, share-alike".
Modder C gets the mod but dislikes the color of the new ressource and he changes it, from purple to black with red dots. He releases it under "GigaBlaster 4000 XM" (same license and all).
Modder A sees this and gets enraged. His wonderful bright purple Awesomium!
A written fight engulfes and in the aftermath, A leaves the pack, because "What you have done with my Awesomium is unbearable".

Are you with me? Do you see the way, the last fight could have been prevented? Yeah! 'A' could have shared its mod with "redistribute, use, share-alike" (no modify).
Given, in this case 'C' might not have used the mod from 'B' because of the color. But hey - he's free to create something new himself.


One last thought: I've been told Bohemia Interactive has a nice licensing system for their stuff

[Tynan]

I added a license requirement like an hour ago

[darthrax]

I used to run an SMF forum a few years ago and after a quick google search I found a mod (for SMF) that might help with the number of posts in the Mods forum, the confusion surrounding them and help with tags etc. There is a free and paid version both made by SMF Hacks called Downloads System. I don't know if this will help but I think it would be better to revise/improve the mods section on this site (as everyone already comes here) that it would be to create a new one as skyllywag wants to (no offence) and split the community. Links below:

Download System
http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=992

Download System Pro
http://www.smfhacks.com/download-system-pro.php

[Alistaire]

Rule 4 doesn't state modpack authors have to abide by the mod authors license.

[RemingtonRyder]

It does now. I updated it.

[RemingtonRyder]

A few more things that might be helpful when putting together a license.

• As we've talked about extensively on the forums and on slack, whether you do not allow your work to be hosted with a donation link.
• Is there is a period of inactivity (as determined by your forum profile) after which your mod may be updated by others and that update included in modpacks?
• Named arbiter. After a long period of inactivity, would you like another mod maker, named by you, to make determinations about the use of your work in your stead? (is that even legal?)

[Urz_]

This thread might be outdated/not checked often anymore, but if you are going to enforce licensing of mods, you should really have a specific license that all mods on this forum has to be published under. like CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 that some modders are already using.

[Kruniac]

Proposal: add the requirement for every mod creator to include a license. Ludeon Studios establishes a license itself, where it's reglemented what is allowed mod-wise, what is allowed license-wise (share, modify, distribute, credit (yeah this one should be fairly clear)...) .

Argumentation:
I was active in numerous modding communities throughout my PC years. In some more involved in others not so much. Work expanded from writing Editors and ModManager (Empire: Total War), creating maps (CS / HalfLife / DeusEx - the original ), being part of a large Mod / ModPack teams (X games, Emergency).
What that has to do with my proposal? Easy. Every community without clear rules regarding copyright / usage of assets / Frankenstein'ing others work into something new had huuuuge problems and a highly variable member pool.
I know this is a fairly new game and it's in its early alpha stages. So the perfect time to establish the rules
I looked for a license agreement from you, Tynan, regarding your work and what we are allowed to do. You (all) may know, that his license type has the potential to have a huge influence on what and what not is allowed by the modders.

Example:
I read the catchphrase "share alike" somewhere around here today. Lets construct around that. Modder A creates a new ressource, awesomium, complete with textures, production chain, everything, even some kind of end product. He shares it with "redistribute, use, modify, share-alike".
Modder B thinks, its the perfect ressource for his new mod, Gigablaster 3000. But he doesn't need the end product and ups the GetFromMining value by 1. As he has to, he too shares his mod (now ressource, texture and part of the production chain from A plus his own textures, production table and the Blaster) with the license "redistribute, use, modify, share-alike".
Modder C gets the mod but dislikes the color of the new ressource and he changes it, from purple to black with red dots. He releases it under "GigaBlaster 4000 XM" (same license and all).
Modder A sees this and gets enraged. His wonderful bright purple Awesomium!
A written fight engulfes and in the aftermath, A leaves the pack, because "What you have done with my Awesomium is unbearable".

Are you with me? Do you see the way, the last fight could have been prevented? Yeah! 'A' could have shared its mod with "redistribute, use, share-alike" (no modify).
Given, in this case 'C' might not have used the mod from 'B' because of the color. But hey - he's free to create something new himself.


One last thought: I've been told Bohemia Interactive has a nice licensing system for their stuff

I feel that this is moot, actually. I'll personally host any mod that this forum doesn't without any questions asked, as I do not believe that changing a small value warrants cries of "mod thief".

Then you get into dirty territory where someone wants to use a resource but changes a few pixels in the art so that it's not stealing, or whatever. No, I'd much rather use a "like it, use it" policy.

[Razzoriel]

I have a question. Does releasing mods related to content that might be considered by the forum or community's mods as "hate speech" forbidden from publishing?

[cortanakya]

Rule 2 isn't relevant anymore, as it's now a full release. 1.0 should be the assumed version, and the rule should apply to mods that haven't yet been updated.